Griceians speak of 'utterers' and 'intentions' and 'spots mean measles'.
"Black clouds mean rain", and "Smoke means smoked salmon". The perception of
a black cloud may be said to be 'theory-laden' in that the Griceian (who is
a Peirceian at heart) is wondering: index, sign, symbol? Then Grice brings
'intention', and says '... intends ...' is a combination of '...
believes...' and '... desires...' (Can the functionalist provide theory-free
observational reports of the 'behavioural outputs' correlated with these two
basic
psychological attitudes? The Griceian then goes on to distinguish between
utterer's meaning and expression meaning, where 'expression' may be said to
be 'theory-laden'. To use Putnam's example, if an ant draws on the sand a
portrait of Winston Churchill, we would be reticent (or 'reluctant') to go
on, alla Grice, to infer that the ant means that we should remember that
memorable (anyway) Prime Minister.
In "Method in philosophical psychology", H. P. Grice develops the sort of
Functionalism that had become fashionable since Putnam's seminal essay on
the topic, followed by refinements by Putnam's student, D. K. Lewis. The idea
is
-------------------------- f
i -----------------------------> o
sensory input ----------> behavioural output
We don't need to postulate a mysterious entity. A psychological predicate
like "... believes..." (or as Grice prefers, "... desires ...") becomes a
_theoretical term_, within a folksy psychological theory, that is. Grice
grants that, as Witters notes, if I see a man approaching me in a threatening
attitude, 'he displays a threatening attitude' may not be just an
observational report of the agent's behavioural output: observation may be
already
theory-laden.
Witters is in a way making a point that Ryle -- a self-avowed behaviourist
-- had developed in "The concept of mind". But Grice finds both Witters
and Ryle unconvincing. Only his brand of functionalism seems "to foot the
bill", as he figuratively puts it.
On the other hand, when Putnam contributed to the Popper volume in The
Library of Living Philosophers, issues of priority ensued. Popper protested
that he had claim observation to be theory-laden (if not expressed in
precisely those Hansonian terms) "long ago". Consider Popper's utterance:
"Clearly, the instruction "Observe!" is absurd."
Had Popper learned Latin in Vienna?
Let's suppose he had, and that, when later discussing 'observation', he
took the time to see if 'observe' can be used _simpliciter_ in the way he
proposes:
i. Observe!
Would a Roman ALSO find the instruction absurd?
Lewis's & Short's "Latin Dictinary" (Oxford) provide some linguistic
botany for Latin 'observare'. I will use the imperative forms when expanding
here. "Observe!" ("Observabis"). According to Lewis/Short (i) becomes
equivalent to:
ii. Watch!
iii. Note!
iv. Heed
v. Observe! [pointing to a thing].
vi. Take notice!
vii. Pay attention!
Some instances cited by Lewis & Short include:
ne me observare possis, quid rerum geram, Plaut. Aul. 1, 1, 14:
quid ille faciat, ne id observes, id. Men. 5, 2, 38:
fetus,
viii. Seek to catch!
Verg. G. 4, 512: lupus observavit, dum dormitarent canes, watched, waited,
Plaut. Trin. 1, 2, 133: occupationem alicujus, et aucupari tempus.
ix. Watch in order to take advantage!
Cic. Rosc. Am. 8, 22: si iniquitates observaveris, Domine, Vulg. Psa. 129,
3: tempus epistulae alicui reddendae,
x. Wait!
Cic. Fam. 11, 16, 1: et insidiari,
xi. Be on the watch!
id. Or. 62, 210: observavit sedulo, ut praetor indiceret, etc.,
xii. Take care!
Suet. Claud. 22.—So pass. impers.: observatum est, ne quotiens introiret
urbem, supplicium de quoquam sumeretur, Suet. Aug. 57 fin.: observans
Acerroniae necem,
xiii. Perceive!
Tac. A. 14, 6: postquam poëta sensit, scripturam suam Ab iniquis observari.
xiv. Scrutinize!
Ter. Ad. prol. 1: sese,
xv. Keep a close watch over thyself!
Cic. Brut. 82, 283.—
II In partic.
xvi. Guard!
xvii. Keep!
anuam, Plaut. As. 2, 2, 7: fores, id. Mil. 2, 3, 57: greges, Ov. M. 1, 513:
draconem, auriferam obtutu observantem arborem, Poët. ap. Cic. Tusc. 2, 9,
22; Sen. Hippol. 223.—
xviii. Respect!
xix. Regard!
xx. Attend!
xxi. Comply!
leges, Cic. Off. 2, 11, 40: censoriam animadversionem, id. Clu. 42, 117:
praeceptum diligentissime, Caes. B. G. 5, 35: imperium,Sall. J. 80, 2:
foedus, Sil. 17, 78: centesimas.
xxii. Adhere!
Cic. Att. 5, 21, 11: commendationes, id. Fam. 13, 27, 1: auspicia, Tac. G.
9: diem concilii, Liv. 1, 50, 6: ordines,
xxiii. Keep in the ranks!
Sall. J. 51, 1.—Pass.: id ab omnibus, Just. 21, 4, 5.—
xxiv. Esteem!
xxv. Honour!
tribules suos, Cic. Planc. 18, 45: regem, Verg. G. 4, 210: me, ut alterum
patrem, et observat, et diligit, Cic. Fam. 5, 8, 4: et colere aliquem, id.
Att. 2, 19, 5: aliquem perofficiose et amanter, id. ib. 9, 20, 3:
clarissimus et nobis observandus vir, Front. Ep. ad Anton. p. 4.—
xxvi. Notice!
Amasa non observavit gladium, Vulg. 2 Reg. 20, 10.
------ END OF LATIN INTERLUDE.
It may irritate a Griceian that Popper uses the adverb 'clearly':
"Clearly, the injunction "Observe!" is absurd."
This may be especially irritating since he had provided a perfectly correct
(or as Grice would prefer, 'true if slighly misleading') scenario: 'Take
pencil
ib. Take pencil and paper; carefully observe, and write down what you have
observed!
Popper does not provide a film for this so we have to take his word for
this. Apparently some of his addressees complained. (He may implicate all did
-- they were only physics students, not philosophy students, granted). Note
that (1b) makes a lot of sense and is hardly 'absurd':
Popper seems to be missing, of course, the implicature of his
ic. Carefully observe!
-- the world around you, he meant. But physics students are into formulae,
unlike philosophers who are always fascinated and _wondered_ by the
'kosmos', as Aristotle puts it in his "Metaphysics". This indeed being the
_source_ of philosophising. Was it necessary for Popper in (ic) to add
'carefully'? Perhaps not. Perhaps 'carefully' applies more to the third
injunction --
there are three injunctions -- the first has two sub-injunctions,take
pencil! take paper! --, carefully observe! write down what you have observed.
I will simplify the scenario to apply to ONE physics student. This is a
Platonic trend. He thought that tutorials require a one-to-one interaction.
The physics student (like the philosophy student) was also invited the
further implicature, "And feel free to chose anything you want to observe, as
long as it will naturally ease your way through the fourth injunction, to
write down what you have observed."
Just because Popper thinks physics students are NOT ultimately or SHOULD
NOT be ultimately philosophy students and that HIS particular physics student
was especially inapt to grasp the invited implicature hardly makes the
initial injunction 'Observe!" absurd. As Horatio was once reprimanded, "there
are more absurd things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than in a
crystal-clear, if philosophically provocative, injunction as the one I'm
politely
offering you."
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
